DR, WARD'S DEVOTIONAL AND SCRIPTURAL L ESSAYS.*

ON any subject, philosophical 'or otherwise, on which you have any commons ground with Dr. Ward, he is always worth listen. ing to ; for he always makes his meaning clear, clear indeed as itie possible for meaning to be ; and he is apt at least to have a Meaning not less definite, but rather more, definite, than the eh- cumstaueas of the case appear to warrant. These are,two admix- ablaqualities, at least for the purposes of the reader. of any able Writer's works, though we do' net deny that the latter is a quality closely related to a fault of. judgment. Still, in these days of hesitating speech and. more hesitating. opiuion, it is something, not only to be sure that you know exactly what the writer means, but to feel sure also that if his meaning is faulty at all, it will not be from his failing to make up his mind where tberais adequate material for a clear and confident judgment, but 'rather from his having too clear and confident a judgment whore there is no adequate material for a confident judgment at all, but rather reason for suspense of judgment: We say this is much the best fault of the two, at least for the pur- poses of thereader. Over-certainty corrects itself. No one can • Eivaits on Devotional and Scriptural Sulitecia. By 'William Ueorgo Ward,1).Ph. London. Barna and Oaten, fail on occasion. to see that a writer tells us that a conclusion is as conspicuous as daylight, which is at-most no more conspicuous than twilight; and this we confess to be occasionally the ease with us, in reference to Dr. Ward's most confident judgments. Nay, in one case at least, what he calls indubitable, we • call a matter of pure conjecture. But when, a writer does not state 'clearly his own judgment, or states habitually a judgment which is itself more dubious and hesitating than the facts of the case would warrant, we certainly do not profit much by his writings. And it is impossible to complain in this way of Dr. Ward. To illustrate what we mean, so far as going beyond his evidence is concerned, we - may quote Dr. Ward's remark, in the foot-note, cm p. 318, to. this effect—that the Mother of Jesus saw her Son after his resurrection "before any other human being?' jean " indubitable fact:" Of course what is dubitable or indubitable' depends partly on subjeetive eon. siderations ; but for anything that Dr. Ward tells us in this volume, and certainly for anything which Scripture tells us, the. fact is not only dubitable by the present writer, but one, of pure-conjecture. The only Scriptural evidenceunthe subject is, as Dr. Ward very candidly Admits, St. Mark's statement' that Christ -appeared first to Marry 'Magdalene. Dr. Ward argues,

thah this only means' that Christ appeared to her before he appeared to any other of the disciples, and that it is not said that he appeared to her first: (vreinst), but only thathe appeared

to her 'in the first instance (criarrom),—rektively, that- is, to the other disciples to whom he was about to manifest himself. We may concede, we, suppose, that this explanation may probably be consistent with the language used, though certainly that language

would seem to suggest something'else. But that being conceded, that any writer, however true. a. Roman Catholic he may be, and however ,profound his devotion to the Virgin, Mary, should be yet prepared to maintain, in the complete silence of Scripture on the subject; and on a priori grounds wholly, that an event " in. dubitably "happened of which there iasimply no historic evidence

at all, certainly does, amaze 11i3. If we were dealing with a mere

human being, it would be simply impossible to argue with certainty on a priori grounds to such an event as that. But Dr. Ward,, holding that what he is inferring with such absolute certainty is the action of God, and an action of God's of which ,God has not pleased to leave us the smallest proof, whether by human testimony or by revelation, still speak: with this marvellous confidence, We are quite aware that a Protestant is incapable of entering into , the feelings - which make these events seem so certain to a genuine Roman Catholic. And if Dr. Ward had simply said that, to a pious mind, it must seem far more probable than not that Jesus Christ. had shown to his mother this mask of. reverence and love, we

should certainly not have adverted to the subject 'at all. But when we find Dr. Ward speaking of an, historical event of which

nobody pretends that there is thaleast:hietoricalmentiou,—the only recorded evidence' with reference. to the circumstances at all being -obviously of an adverse tendency,—we confess ourselves a.

little at a loss for common grounds of opinion. We are still more puzzled by the sort of argument which Dr. Ward-addresses to Protestants on the subject. "U the silence . of Scripture,"

he. says, " shows that he did not appear to her first, it. equally shows that he. did not -appear-to her a all." But no Protestant

ever supposed that the silence of Scripture shows that Christ

did not appear to his mother, first. What is supposed by Protestants to prove this, so far as anything does prove it, is St.

Mark's assertion that in the first instance' our Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene. If that be not conclusive—and we do not say that it is—Protestants simply say that they Inow nothing about it,thatan. the absence of all testimony, Christ may haveappeared to his 'mother first, or not- first, or even may not have appeared..

individually to her at all; but that they do not, in the absenceof evitIonee, presume to form any -opinion on the subject. They do

not presume to judge a priori of the temporal actions of a divine

being, and they have 'no other knowledge on the subject ex- cept one, perhaps insufficient; bit of evidence, which suggests that it was to another person- that our Lou]. first appeared, they do not attempt to form a judgment for 'which there are absolutely no grounds.

There is the same over-confidence, as it seems to us, in-the very interesting and able essay on the relations of St. Peter and' St. Paul, in-which Dr. Ward attempts to show; and we think eucceeds in showing it to be probable, that the-view-which Pro-

testants commonly urge of the, ecclesiastical inference to be drawn from the protestof St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Gala- tians, against St. Peter's inconsistency in withdrawing himself at Antioch from living with the Gentiles, is not a sound one. Dr. Ward argues that, on the contrary, St. Paul's language implies a very great desire to show that his own principles and St. Peter's were in complete accordance ; that St. Peter was acting in &manner unjust to the Gentiles, without the smallest ground of difference of principle to urge for his change of purpose ; and that, so far from St. Paul's not admitting a certain primacy in St. Peter, the very expressions he uses imply that he felt there was something of audacity needed to withstand and rebuke one in an Apostolic position superior to his own. After reading what Dr. Ward has to say, we should be disposed to admit that there is nothing in St. Paul's language in this epistle, as inter- preted by the best Protestant as well as Roman Catholic scholars, —by such a scholar, for instance, as Bishop Lightfoot—at all necessarily inconsistent with the Roman Catholic assumption of St. Peter's primacy among the Apostles ; though we do not think that there is anything at all in the absence of other evidence to prove more than the sort of personal leadership among the Apostles which Protestants, no less than Catholics, have always conceded to St. Peter. But we cannot say the same of the account, in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, of the Council of Jerusalem. Dr. Ward's view is given briefly in the following passage :—

"There is no portion of Scripture history from which Protestants have derived so many objections to S. Peter's Primacy, as from the Judaising controversy. These objections chiefly concern the relations between him and S. Paul ; and we devoted an article in January to their detailed refutation. One remains to be considered hero ; be. cause it is founded on the position, not of S. Paul, but of S. James.

We will begin by stating it at the best advantage If S. Peter had possessed a Primacy of authority, it is quite impossible that S. James, not he, should have presided at the Council of Jerusalem, and pro- mulgated the Apostolic Decree. But S. James assuredly did occupy this place. It was he who finally summed up tho proceedings, and pronounced the "ego judico " (xv., 19) which was carried into effect.'

The objection possesses on the surface much ; but it is at once dissipated when you look closely at facts. Its fallacy consists in its ignoring the circumstance that there were two Apostolic pro- nouncements, viz. (1), the Definition of faith and (2), the disciplinary Decree. S. Peter very suitably uttered the former, and M. James very suitably uttered the latter. Ego judico' undoubtedly means, as the objector alleges, I judge in my own name and that of my brethren ;' 'I pronounce the Apostolic judgment ;' but then this judgment was not doctrinal, but disciplinary. If one may indulge in conjecture, it would seem far more probable than not, that it was S. James who proposed this measure at the preliminary mooting. At all events, his position, as specially representing the Jewish element in the Church, made it obviously suitable that he should pronounce, what had been decreed in protection of the Jewish Christians. But if you look carefully at his speech, you will find that, so far from professing to promulgate a definition of faith, on the contrary, he rather refers (verse 14) to S. Peter as having already done so. While, on the other hand, so soon as S. Peter had spoken, tacuit ornnis multitude' (verse 12), and the voice of controversy was no longer hoard."

Now in reply to that, we should remark that St. Peter's speech con- tains no authoritative definition at all. It urges on the Council facts of the greatest importance, and facts backed with a remonstrance against the Judaising party, but certainly nothing of the character of what the Roman Catholic Church now calls "a definition of faith and morals ;" whereas St. James's speech certainly does contain something of that nature, in the words, Itd xplyw to7 orapsidoxAtly roi euro TiZp elrrempi0ovatm kri Tdv (Nov." If St. Peter had, DA Dr. Ward says, clearly given the "definition of faith," why does St. James here repeat it, instead of going at once to his practical recommendations, to which, according to Dr. Ward, he confines himself? Clearly, this iyr.) xplved is not so limited, but repeats St. Peter's drift, with an air of authority which St. Peter had not given to it. What he refers to St. Peter for, is not, so far as we can judge, the defini- tion of faith, but for the facts on which the inference was to be justified that God intended to accept the Gentiles without any conformity to the Jewish law. If any reliance is to be placed on the forme of this first Council at all,—and we do not say that we should place any great reliance on these forms,—they are, we think, rather in favour of the special authority of St. James, than the special authority of St. Peter. We should not like to argue much from the facts on either side. But we should say very confidently, that if you are to justify any decided ecclesi- astical inference from the facts of this Council, they rather dis- prove than prove the formal acknowledgment at this time of the primacy of St. Peter.

Dr. Ward's essays on "The Gospel Narrative of the Resurrec- tion," and on the identity of Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the sinner who bathed the feet of Jesus, seem to us the most convincing in this volume. There is much of which we are

doubtful in the former, while the latter appears to us, on the whole, conplete, as well as very thoughtful. Indeed, where we differ most widely from Dr. Ward, we always read him with pleasure. There is a real satisfaction in dealing with a mind so definite and vigorous as Dr. Ward's, even when it ia identified with views opposite to our own.